quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
General question...
So personhood bills will not force any woman to give birth once she is pregnant?
Is the word force that is a problem?? how about denial of her beliefs, or forcing her beliefs to align with the state and church??
Government "forcing" a cake maker to bake a cake is wrong, because it goes against his beliefs
but forcing every woman to carry to term, is fine. because her life, her beliefs are immaterial
NOt to mention it would put IVF and its various medical procedures in danger.

If this is an FR, you forgot it again.

Human right to life is far, far, different than the supposed right of a gay couple to force a cake maker to customize a cake opposed to his belief.

For one, the cake makers belief isn't crossing anyone's inalienable human right.

According to current law, there are limitations and conditions on when a woman can decide to abort. At some point in time, a fetus does begin to gain human rights. Is there truly a difference between a fetus that is on it's way out the birth canal, and a baby that has just exited the birth canal? Is the former truly less of a human than the latter, and not eligible for protection of human rights?

If a fetus has no rights until it's born, an abortion should allowable right up until birth, no? I mean, it's not really a human, as far as rights are concerned (in that argument).

In your opinion, at what point does a fetus gain it's humanity? At what point does a fetus's inalienable human rights (you know, the ones that are "endowed by [its] Creator") deserve to be protected?

You ask an awful lot of questions (which is great), but rarely actually answer any (which is not). How about you start answering as many as you ask?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
General question...
So personhood bills will not force any woman to give birth once she is pregnant?
Is the word force that is a problem?? how about denial of her beliefs, or forcing her beliefs to align with the state and church??
Government "forcing" a cake maker to bake a cake is wrong, because it goes against his beliefs
but forcing every woman to carry to term, is fine. because her life, her beliefs are immaterial
NOt to mention it would put IVF and its various medical procedures in danger.

If this is an FR, you forgot it again.
Human right to life is far, far, different than the supposed right of a gay couple to force a cake maker to customize a cake opposed to his belief.
For one, the cake makers belief isn't crossing anyone's inalienable human right.
According to current law, there are limitations and conditions on when a woman can decide to abort. At some point in time, a fetus does begin to gain human rights. Is there truly a difference between a fetus that is on it's way out the birth canal, and a baby that has just exited the birth canal? Is the former truly less of a human than the latter, and not eligible for protection of human rights?
If a fetus has no rights until it's born, an abortion should allowable right up until birth, no? I mean, it's not really a human, as far as rights are concerned (in that argument).
In your opinion, at what point does a fetus gain it's humanity? At what point does a fetus's inalienable human rights (you know, the ones that are "endowed by [its] Creator") deserve to be protected?
You ask an awful lot of questions (which is great), but rarely actually answer any (which is not). How about you start answering as many as you ask?

yes I put general question, not FR..
Im sorry but we arent talking about life in the birth canal or just born, even tho its the "talking point" that abortions are done the day before birth for convenience.

quote:

ANd you have ignored most of my points, let alone questions.
What is considered individual life, has changed, philosophy and technologically
Its fraught with misinformation and obfuscation.

quote:

The last "personhood bill" had all male republican christian male sponsors
Not a single female,
why?

quote:

PS...the couple didnt get a cake, "they" didnt force anyone.
The government stepped in, but nobody was forced to bake a cake....
Unlike the cake, Giving birth will be.

quote:

If you chaps wish to focus only on the "humanity of the fetus" without taking into consideration the humanity and life of the incubator.
I wont take part.
I dont see the point, as the pregnant woman is demoted to a footnote.
You men discuss it...
have fun.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/01/six-week-abortion-bill-dangerous-new-low-us
from february about the six week abortion limit bill that was proposed.
The United States Congress held a hearing today on a bill that would essentially ban abortion after six weeks’ gestation. It’s easy to brush this off as an extreme bill that won’t gain traction, but in fact it points to a dangerous normalization of greater restrictions on abortion in the US.
State legislators around the country, and the US Congress, have been trying to pass laws for years to limit access to abortion. This bill, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”, goes further than most and dangerously limits women’s access to a termination, with no exceptions for the health of the woman or for those pregnant from rape or incest.
I know what a near total abortion ban looks like in reality. I have spent years researching such bans in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean, and it is ugly, cruel, and devastating to both women and society as a whole.
When abortion is criminalized in this way, even women who suffer a miscarriage can face a criminal investigation. Please, imagine that. Every woman seeking medical care for a miscarriage could theoretically be thrown into prison.
This isn’t wild speculation. In El Salvador, women who suffered obstetric emergencies have actually been convicted of murder and jailed for years. Women are denied access to abortions, even if their health depends on it. In 2013, a young mother wanted to end a pregnancy because it was making her sick, and she had a one-year-old she didn’t want to leave orphaned. But the law forbade doctors from helping her. So, she languished in a hospital bed until an emergency C-section was performed. The baby had a fatal disability and died within hours. That is what a total ban looks like in practice.
A bill like the one presented today makes suspects out of women who have miscarried, and makes criminals of victims of rape who get pregnant and want to terminate, women needing abortion because of ill health, and women simply making a deeply personal decision not to continue a pregnancy for any reason. This bill is a giant step backward and a sweeping attack on the rights of women.
Members of Congress should not let this go to a vote.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I think im making a small but necessary distinction in how we understand "agreement"---not necessarily that two people have to exactly believe the same thing, but rather that something is "agreeable." that is, both sides are willing to abide by it for the sake of moving forward.

quote:

what will happen after that, at least speaking for the pro-life side, is that they'll always want to move the line further back towards conception. but meanwhile, I think they'd take any "agreement" as a good place to start.
those are good questions about risky behavior. im unaware of what all the state laws are concerning it and pregnancy but it seems the negligent homicide question has to be taken off the table based simply on not being aware of the pregnancy. the manslaughter question is more interesting---though I suspect in many cases it would be extremely difficult to prove.
what your asking about cells dividing, etc---is ultimately a metaphysical question. what is life and when are we imbued with it?
while im here, as I like the idea of all the comrades moving to cuba, Sweden or north korea, i'll include the women who look at pregnancy as "incubation" as opposed to the beginning of motherhood.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” [ironically this one comes from the dept of health and human services]

“A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

the sources (geneticists, molecular biologists, embryologists, etc. predominantly from embryology texts)

quote:

1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

quote:

The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops." (right---apparently not "human" though?)

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

"Human beings begin at conception.”

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg…."

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization..."

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/01/six-week-abortion-bill-dangerous-new-low-us
from february about the six week abortion limit bill that was proposed.
The United States Congress held a hearing today on a bill that would essentially ban abortion after six weeks’ gestation. It’s easy to brush this off as an extreme bill that won’t gain traction, but in fact it points to a dangerous normalization of greater restrictions on abortion in the US.
State legislators around the country, and the US Congress, have been trying to pass laws for years to limit access to abortion. This bill, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”, goes further than most and dangerously limits women’s access to a termination, with no exceptions for the health of the woman or for those pregnant from rape or incest.
I know what a near total abortion ban looks like in reality. I have spent years researching such bans in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean, and it is ugly, cruel, and devastating to both women and society as a whole.
When abortion is criminalized in this way, even women who suffer a miscarriage can face a criminal investigation. Please, imagine that. Every woman seeking medical care for a miscarriage could theoretically be thrown into prison.
This isn’t wild speculation. In El Salvador, women who suffered obstetric emergencies have actually been convicted of murder and jailed for years. Women are denied access to abortions, even if their health depends on it. In 2013, a young mother wanted to end a pregnancy because it was making her sick, and she had a one-year-old she didn’t want to leave orphaned. But the law forbade doctors from helping her. So, she languished in a hospital bed until an emergency C-section was performed. The baby had a fatal disability and died within hours. That is what a total ban looks like in practice.
A bill like the one presented today makes suspects out of women who have miscarried, and makes criminals of victims of rape who get pregnant and want to terminate, women needing abortion because of ill health, and women simply making a deeply personal decision not to continue a pregnancy for any reason. This bill is a giant step backward and a sweeping attack on the rights of women.
Members of Congress should not let this go to a vote.

You're comparing the US to El Salvador?!?

There will be Constitutional challenges to the Heartbeat Act, if Roe v. Wade has anything to do with it, it will get struck down.

You're going apoplectic over the CDC not being allowed to use some terms? That's not going to amount to anything, and, if challenged, the Trump Administration (or whoever specifically is behind it) will be on the losing side.

The 6-week ban to make the 20-week ban is a persuasive strategy. If Senators fall for that (especially after it's being reported), then, you get what you elect.

Chicken Little much?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Lucy, please send me a cmail, need advice, will explain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
if its not life, or not a human being, what is it and when does it become so?
and if we don't know, despite all the above, doesn't the idea of "life" deserve any benefit of the doubt?
we might be back to the question of, "when does a baby accrue rights?" if its a life at conception, why wouldn't it have rights?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
http://www.collarchat.com/postnumber.asp?id=4882114

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I discovered if you click it, it doesn't work, but if you copy/paste it, it takes you to the page in question of the thread, which is below:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_4873492/mpage_18/key_/tm.htm#4882114

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)